Ocean Acidification pHraud

[Crick]

I bet the paper invalidated his thesis.

I believe he stated that he wanted real data rather than modeled results. You have a problem with that?

He can want anything he can think of. What he may not be able to do is tell 15 PhDs what they should have done.

 

[jc456]

I bet the paper invalidated his thesis.

I believe he stated that he wanted real data rather than modeled results. You have a problem with that?

He can want anything he can think of. What he may not be able to do is tell 15 PhDs what they should have done.

and there it is!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Data set from 1880:

End of data set

 

[jc456]

Data set from 1880:

End of data set

priceless!

 

[mamooth]

Deniers, suckered again. Why? Because in Denierstan, it's more important to go along with the other cultists than it is to do the science correctly.

Weights Measures and Esoterica What Wallace did wrong

It's too long and complex of an explanation to post here. The summary is that if Wallace wants to salvage a career, he needs to retract his fables and issue some grovelling apologies to all the people he lied about. And if Ian wishes to salvage his credibility, he ought to do the same.

 

[jc456]

Deniers, suckered again. Why? Because in Denierstan, it's more important to go along with the other cultists than it is to do the science correctly.

Weights Measures and Esoterica What Wallace did wrong

It's too long and complex of an explanation to post here. The summary is that if Wallace wants to salvage a career, he needs to retract his fables and issue some grovelling apologies to all the people he lied about. And if Ian wishes to salvage his credibility, he ought to do the same.

keep your lips to yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Deniers, suckered again. Why? Because in Denierstan, it's more important to go along with the other cultists than it is to do the science correctly.

Weights Measures and Esoterica What Wallace did wrong

It's too long and complex of an explanation to post here. The summary is that if Wallace wants to salvage a career, he needs to retract his fables and issue some grovelling apologies to all the people he lied about. And if Ian wishes to salvage his credibility, he ought to do the same.

Oh, so you have the data set from 1880.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Takes me woid on it, the ocean was far less acidic in 1880 arkarkarkarka" -- a Leading Expert on ocean pH circa 1880

 

[mamooth]

Frank, you're a moron. The chart didn't say they took pH measurements in 1880. You made that up.

Remember Frank, you lying about the science doesn't make the science untrue. It just makes you a piss-guzzling cult liar Now, why don't you and jc run along and have another cult piss chugging contest? I'm sure you both can fall for stupider scams than this one, if you really put your minds to it.

 

[jc456]

Frank, you're a moron. The chart didn't say they took pH measurements in 1880. You made that up.

Remember Frank, you lying about the science doesn't make the science untrue. It just makes you a piss-guzzling cult liar Now, why don't you and jc run along and have another cult piss chugging contest? I'm sure you both can fall for stupider scams than this one, if you really put your minds to it.

badda boom!!!!!!

Edit: (laughing as I write this), holy crap tooth watch out for a straight jacket coming your way! I mean, (laughing some more), holy crap. I get that defeat is tough to take, but wow.

 

[jc456]

hahahahahhaha, need to watch out for that straight jacket old tooth, it may be closer than you think. Boo! scare ya? don't step on any cracks tooth, you break your mama's back. I appreciate the fondness you have for skeptics and am proud you think I am tops. I am. I have quite a lot of confidence that you apparently don't have. keep up the good work toward getting that jacket though, you've earned it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you're a moron. The chart didn't say they took pH measurements in 1880. You made that up.

Remember Frank, you lying about the science doesn't make the science untrue. It just makes you a piss-guzzling cult liar Now, why don't you and jc run along and have another cult piss chugging contest? I'm sure you both can fall for stupider scams than this one, if you really put your minds to it.

Like your BFF (Best Fetish Friend) g5000, it's clear you use any post as an excuse to remind us all of your pee fetish, that's fine.

How's the weather? Well it's fine if like Mamooth you love a Golden shower.

In any event if you don't have the data from 1880, why pretend?

 

[jc456]

I supposed I could have responded with, you're right I am way too stupid for your conversations. I have no idea what the hell you think being that you have no data to support any side of the climate discussion. You're right I am too stupid for you!! your stupid is rated so high, I think you top the charts with stupid discussions. You have it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

jc, you need to understand you're too stupid to be in this discussion.

Actually, you're too stupid to be in any discussion. Any thread you touch is worse for your presence. You are like poison to knowledge, even more so than Frank.

In other words, you're a perfect denier cultist, completely bankrupt both intellectually and ethically.

I supposed I could have responded with, you're right I am way too stupid for your conversations. I have no idea what the hell you think being that you have no data to support any side of the climate discussion. You're right I am too stupid for you!! your stupid is rated so high, I think you top the charts with stupid discussions. You have it.

All we know for certain is that Mamooth has a liquid fetish and not ocean water either

 

[jc456]

funny how they have no open mind to a discussion, and lack the ability to converse. individuals on the left are whack jobs on message boards, they believe they know all of the answers. How is that? When the world is so big? I don't get it, so I am too stupid to their line of reasoning. I want to learn, to know, to broaden who I am. My CP grandson wants to run, he can't, he'd like to ride a bike, he can't. These fools are not familiar at all with reality and what is what on this planet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

funny how they have no open mind to a discussion, and lack the ability to converse. individuals on the left are whack jobs on message boards, they believe they know all of the answers. How is that? When the world is so big? I don't get it, so I am too stupid to their line of reasoning. I want to learn, to know, to broaden who I am. My CP grandson wants to run, he can't, he'd like to ride a bike, he can't. These fools are not familiar at all with reality and what is what on this planet.

It's from being in a Cult. They can't discuss science, they need to try end all debate by telling us they have "Consensus", which is not a term found in science.

The next Republican President needs to zero out all federal funding for this insane batshit crazy Doomsday Cult

 

[cnm]

Deniers, suckered again. Why? Because in Denierstan, it's more important to go along with the other cultists than it is to do the science correctly.

Weights Measures and Esoterica What Wallace did wrong

It's too long and complex of an explanation to post here. The summary is that if Wallace wants to salvage a career, he needs to retract his fables and issue some grovelling apologies to all the people he lied about. And if Ian wishes to salvage his credibility, he ought to do the same.

Weights Measures and Esoterica What Wallace did wrong

Wallace isn't going to recover from that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification

1. O. Hoegh-Guldberg1,*,
2. P. J. Mumby2,
3. A. J. Hooten3,
4. R. S. Steneck4,
5. P. Greenfield5,
6. E. Gomez6,
7. C. D. Harvell7,
8. P. F. Sale8,
9. A. J. Edwards9,
10. K. Caldeira10,
11. N. Knowlton11,
12. C. M. Eakin12,
13. R. Iglesias-Prieto13,
14. N. Muthiga14,
15. R. H. Bradbury15,
16. A. Dubi16,
17. M. E. Hatziolos17

+Author Affiliations

1. ↵* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

• ABSTRACT

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained. Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse. This review presents future scenarios for coral reefs that predict increasingly serious consequences for reef-associated fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, and people. As the International Year of the Reef 2008 begins, scaled-up management intervention and decisive action on global emissions are required if the loss of coral-dominated ecosystems is to be avoided.

Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification

And what does one find in the peer reviewed literature?

 

[Old Rocks]

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms
James C. Orr1, Victoria J. Fabry2, Olivier Aumont3, Laurent Bopp1, Scott C. Doney4, Richard A. Feely5, Anand Gnanadesikan6, Nicolas Gruber7, Akio Ishida8, Fortunat Joos9, Robert M. Key10, Keith Lindsay11, Ernst Maier-Reimer12, Richard Matear13, Patrick Monfray1,19, Anne Mouchet14, Raymond G. Najjar15, Gian-Kasper Plattner7,9, Keith B. Rodgers1,16,19, Christopher L. Sabine5, Jorge L. Sarmiento10, Reiner Schlitzer17, Richard D. Slater10, Ian J. Totterdell18,19, Marie-France Weirig17, Yasuhiro Yamanaka8 & Andrew Yool18

Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/full/nature04095.html

Decades, not centuries.

 

[Old Rocks]

Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms

1. Kristy J. Kroeker1,*,
2. Rebecca L. Kordas2,
3. Ryan N. Crim2 and
4. Gerald G. Singh2

Abstract
Ocean acidification is a pervasive stressor that could affect many marine organisms and cause profound ecological shifts. A variety of biological responses to ocean acidification have been measured across a range of taxa, but this information exists as case studies and has not been synthesized into meaningful comparisons amongst response variables and functional groups. We used meta-analytic techniques to explore the biological responses to ocean acidification, and found negative effects on survival, calcification, growth and reproduction. However, there was significant variation in the sensitivity of marine organisms. Calcifying organisms generally exhibited larger negative responses than non-calcifying organisms across numerous response variables, with the exception of crustaceans, which calcify but were not negatively affected. Calcification responses varied significantly amongst organisms using different mineral forms of calcium carbonate. Organisms using one of the more soluble forms of calcium carbonate (high-magnesium calcite) can be more resilient to ocean acidification than less soluble forms (calcite and aragonite). Additionally, there was variation in the sensitivities of different developmental stages, but this variation was dependent on the taxonomic group. Our analyses suggest that the biological effects of ocean acidification are generally large and negative, but the variation in sensitivity amongst organisms has important implications for ecosystem responses.

Many, many more aticles available from Google Scholar. Odd, cannot find a single one stating what a good thing that ocean acidification is.